Liberal media caught in another blatant lie: National Mall was FULL during Trump's inauguration

[Faun]

View attachment 108181

Please note the image on the jumbotrons.
This is while Trump is speaking.

Game. Set. Match!

Thanks, bro.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I did look at it.
There is no overhead shot that shows a full mall. No one has provided that.

Did you use the zoom feature?

I did.
Did you provide the overhead shot refuting the one in question?

I suppose only those directly involved in the MSM conspiracy had access to the cam on the Washington Monument.

No need for an overhead shot when I can zoom in on the crowd and clearly see they are standing shoulder to shoulder.
You see thats the problem with your theory of angles.
When seen from a distance your theory holds water,but when you can get up close that angle effect is gone.
The place was packed,admit it and move on.

There is a need when that is the angle in question.

You can clearly see people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

 

[theHawk]

Did you use the zoom feature?

I did.
Did you provide the overhead shot refuting the one in question?

I suppose only those directly involved in the MSM conspiracy had access to the cam on the Washington Monument.

No need for an overhead shot when I can zoom in on the crowd and clearly see they are standing shoulder to shoulder.
You see thats the problem with your theory of angles.
When seen from a distance your theory holds water,but when you can get up close that angle effect is gone.
The place was packed,admit it and move on.

There is a need when that is the angle in question.

You can clearly see people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

View attachment 108184

Nice photoshop. Got a link for that pic?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I did.
Did you provide the overhead shot refuting the one in question?

I suppose only those directly involved in the MSM conspiracy had access to the cam on the Washington Monument.

No need for an overhead shot when I can zoom in on the crowd and clearly see they are standing shoulder to shoulder.
You see thats the problem with your theory of angles.
When seen from a distance your theory holds water,but when you can get up close that angle effect is gone.
The place was packed,admit it and move on.

There is a need when that is the angle in question.

You can clearly see people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

View attachment 108184

Nice photoshop. Got a link for that pic?

Got an overhead shot showing a full mall?

 

[Norman]

Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting that the Mall was half empty or worse during Trump's inauguration. They point to photos displayed by the New York Times and other liberal rags as "proof", showing most of the Mall empty.

But CNN has developed a photo technique they call "Gigapixel", which takes a photo of a very large area, with such precision that you can zoom in and see individual faces. They used it while Trump was giving his inaugural address.

Unfortunately, CNN was so eager to show off their new technology, they forgot to get their stories straight with the other media outlets first. You have to go to the website and pivot the picture back and forth. And when you do, at one end you can see Trump standing at the dais alone, giving his speech to the audience. And if you swing it the other way and zoom out, you can see that the National Mall is COMPLETELY FULL except for two small sections that were 75% full. That's easily a million people.

No wonder Trump's people ripped the media a new one (again). The NYTimes was manufacturing fake news (again) designed to make Trump look bad (again), and they got caught red-handed (again).

A small line near the bottom of the NYT article explains the lie: They admit that their half-empty picture was taken nearly an hour before Trump was inaugurated, and that people were still coming in. Why they call that picture "Trump's Inauguration" is not explained.

When you ask someone how many people came to Trump's inauguration, you're not asking how many showed up an hour early. You're asking how many were there. The NYT tried to substitute the hour-earlier picture for an actual picture of the inauguration. But CNN showed an actual picture of the inauguration, in terrific detail... thus blowing the New York Times' lie out of the water.

For the New York Times' fake picture, see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html?_r=0

And for CNN's true picture taken an hour later, see Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump .

Remember to zoom the CNN picture in and out so you can see Trump giving his speech (which pinpoints what time it was taken), and you can also see that the entire Mall is jammed to the rafters.

They published #FakeNews in mass and Trump's secretary caught all of it.

I wonder if New York times will exist after the 8 years. Libs will love to hear that Trump has put a halt on the lying big corporations that they hate so much.

 

[theHawk]

No need for an overhead shot when I can zoom in on the crowd and clearly see they are standing shoulder to shoulder.
You see thats the problem with your theory of angles.
When seen from a distance your theory holds water,but when you can get up close that angle effect is gone.
The place was packed,admit it and move on.

There is a need when that is the angle in question.

You can clearly see people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

View attachment 108184

Nice photoshop. Got a link for that pic?

Got an overhead shot showing a full mall?

In other words you don't have a link for that pic. I don't have access to the live feeds from those cameras, so I can't provide thing more than what is already out there. The gigapixel clearly shows full crowd in the sections you claim were empty during the speech.

Now, do you have a link for that photo or not?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting that the Mall was half empty or worse during Trump's inauguration. They point to photos displayed by the New York Times and other liberal rags as "proof", showing most of the Mall empty.

But CNN has developed a photo technique they call "Gigapixel", which takes a photo of a very large area, with such precision that you can zoom in and see individual faces. They used it while Trump was giving his inaugural address.

Unfortunately, CNN was so eager to show off their new technology, they forgot to get their stories straight with the other media outlets first. You have to go to the website and pivot the picture back and forth. And when you do, at one end you can see Trump standing at the dais alone, giving his speech to the audience. And if you swing it the other way and zoom out, you can see that the National Mall is COMPLETELY FULL except for two small sections that were 75% full. That's easily a million people.

No wonder Trump's people ripped the media a new one (again). The NYTimes was manufacturing fake news (again) designed to make Trump look bad (again), and they got caught red-handed (again).

A small line near the bottom of the NYT article explains the lie: They admit that their half-empty picture was taken nearly an hour before Trump was inaugurated, and that people were still coming in. Why they call that picture "Trump's Inauguration" is not explained.

When you ask someone how many people came to Trump's inauguration, you're not asking how many showed up an hour early. You're asking how many were there. The NYT tried to substitute the hour-earlier picture for an actual picture of the inauguration. But CNN showed an actual picture of the inauguration, in terrific detail... thus blowing the New York Times' lie out of the water.

For the New York Times' fake picture, see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html?_r=0

And for CNN's true picture taken an hour later, see Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump .

Remember to zoom the CNN picture in and out so you can see Trump giving his speech (which pinpoints what time it was taken), and you can also see that the entire Mall is jammed to the rafters.

Holy crap. What fucking straight up liars.

Trump really rocked their fragile little minds. That NYT picture is 100% not from while Trump was speaking.

This is how snowflakes consume their news. It must be the reason they are so fucked in the head.

 

[theHawk]

Looks like Hutchy-boy gets his fake news from the Sun tabloid:

Donald Trump's inauguration figures fail to match Barack Obama's in 2009

 

[Faun]

Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting that the Mall was half empty or worse during Trump's inauguration. They point to photos displayed by the New York Times and other liberal rags as "proof", showing most of the Mall empty.

But CNN has developed a photo technique they call "Gigapixel", which takes a photo of a very large area, with such precision that you can zoom in and see individual faces. They used it while Trump was giving his inaugural address.

Unfortunately, CNN was so eager to show off their new technology, they forgot to get their stories straight with the other media outlets first. You have to go to the website and pivot the picture back and forth. And when you do, at one end you can see Trump standing at the dais alone, giving his speech to the audience. And if you swing it the other way and zoom out, you can see that the National Mall is COMPLETELY FULL except for two small sections that were 75% full. That's easily a million people.

No wonder Trump's people ripped the media a new one (again). The NYTimes was manufacturing fake news (again) designed to make Trump look bad (again), and they got caught red-handed (again).

A small line near the bottom of the NYT article explains the lie: They admit that their half-empty picture was taken nearly an hour before Trump was inaugurated, and that people were still coming in. Why they call that picture "Trump's Inauguration" is not explained.

When you ask someone how many people came to Trump's inauguration, you're not asking how many showed up an hour early. You're asking how many were there. The NYT tried to substitute the hour-earlier picture for an actual picture of the inauguration. But CNN showed an actual picture of the inauguration, in terrific detail... thus blowing the New York Times' lie out of the water.

For the New York Times' fake picture, see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html?_r=0

And for CNN's true picture taken an hour later, see Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump .

Remember to zoom the CNN picture in and out so you can see Trump giving his speech (which pinpoints what time it was taken), and you can also see that the entire Mall is jammed to the rafters.

Holy crap. What fucking straight up liars.

Trump really rocked their fragile little minds. That NYT picture is 100% not from while Trump was speaking.

This is how snowflakes consume their news. It must be the reason they are so fucked in the head.

Dayam! Even when shown reality, you clingon's still prefer alternative facts.

 

[ColonelAngus]

There is a need when that is the angle in question.

You can clearly see people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

View attachment 108184

Nice photoshop. Got a link for that pic?

Got an overhead shot showing a full mall?

In other words you don't have a link for that pic. I don't have access to the live feeds from those cameras, so I can't provide thing more than what is already out there. The gigapixel clearly shows full crowd in the sections you claim were empty during the speech.

Now, do you have a link for that photo or not?

The gigapixel shows the mall was full all the way back to the monument. The NYT picture is a straight up lie. I watched it in television.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is a need when that is the angle in question.

You can clearly see people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

View attachment 108184

Nice photoshop. Got a link for that pic?

Got an overhead shot showing a full mall?

In other words you don't have a link for that pic. I don't have access to the live feeds from those cameras, so I can't provide thing more than what is already out there. The gigapixel clearly shows full crowd in the sections you claim were empty during the speech.

Now, do you have a link for that photo or not?

Is your Google broken?
Take your pick.
trump inauguration crowd pictures - Google Search

 

[Faun]

You can clearly see people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

View attachment 108184

Nice photoshop. Got a link for that pic?

Got an overhead shot showing a full mall?

In other words you don't have a link for that pic. I don't have access to the live feeds from those cameras, so I can't provide thing more than what is already out there. The gigapixel clearly shows full crowd in the sections you claim were empty during the speech.

Now, do you have a link for that photo or not?

The gigapixel shows the mall was full all the way back to the monument. The NYT picture is a straight up lie. I watched it in television.

So now the New York Times is in on the conspiracy too??

That brings us to... CNN, BBC, NBC, PBS, & NYT.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You can clearly see people standing shoulder to shoulder.

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

View attachment 108184

Nice photoshop. Got a link for that pic?

Got an overhead shot showing a full mall?

In other words you don't have a link for that pic. I don't have access to the live feeds from those cameras, so I can't provide thing more than what is already out there. The gigapixel clearly shows full crowd in the sections you claim were empty during the speech.

Now, do you have a link for that photo or not?

The gigapixel shows the mall was full all the way back to the monument. The NYT picture is a straight up lie. I watched it in television.

The gigapixel shows that there were lots of people, and the NYT shows there were lots of people, but both from different angles. I mean, this is basic science here.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, from the front.
Not from the angle in question.

You can clearly see that is not the case in this overhead shot.

View attachment 108184

Nice photoshop. Got a link for that pic?

Got an overhead shot showing a full mall?

In other words you don't have a link for that pic. I don't have access to the live feeds from those cameras, so I can't provide thing more than what is already out there. The gigapixel clearly shows full crowd in the sections you claim were empty during the speech.

Now, do you have a link for that photo or not?

The gigapixel shows the mall was full all the way back to the monument. The NYT picture is a straight up lie. I watched it in television.

So now the New York Times is in on the conspiracy too??

That brings us to... CNN, BBC, NBC, PBS, & NYT.

And Fox, because all of Fox's pictures show big gaps too.

 

[jc456]

Oh, now for the attacks. Again, you've shown NOTHING to suggest that these pictures are fake, and yet you've pulled out the insults. Well done.

Look at this, then tell us you can't see the difference. You say that and you're either a dishonest scumbag or stupid beyond belief.

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

The difference is in the perspective of the respective cameras.
Please provide the overhead shot that shows a full mall.

Blow it out of your fucking faggot ass. You are all fucking liars. You are fucking wastes of life. You stupid fucking moron.

Go home. Your fucking lying kuuunt witch lost.

You fucking petulant whiny pussy.

"I am right, I know I am right"

"Okay, please provide some evidence"

"Go fuck yourself"

This, people, is a partisan hack argument.

well that isn't true, but hey you avoid facts and it's understood that way.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting that the Mall was half empty or worse during Trump's inauguration.

Nobody is making that claim. Not one photo portrays an empty Mall during the Trump inauguration.

This is what The Mall looks like when it's substantively empty.

you can see that the National Mall is COMPLETELY FULL except for two small sections that were 75% full. That's easily a million people.

CNN Gigapixel photo

You really should look around more for more informative images than the CNN "gigapixel," which is a photo taken from literally a few feet above the photographers shown in the bottom right corner of that shot.

The camera for that photo is not elevated high enough to provide a comprehensive viewing perspective that shows the full length of The Mall and allows one to gauge the crowd density over the entirety of that length. The gigapixel image wasn't even taken from as high up as the bottom of the Capitol dome, which itself is higher than the roofs of the buildings on The Mall.

Look at the "long shot" photo above and you'll see that the horizon rises to obscure one's ability to see on the ground crowd density information. The same cannot be said of the photos below.

I have no idea of what you think of as "two small sections" of The Mall. There is one section of The Mall that about the width (east to west) of 1/4th a city block. That section is visible in the very first photo of this post. The sections you see in front of the National Gallery, Museum of Natural History/Castle are two standard city blocks long.

Ancillary information from the D.C. Metro system:

 

[jc456]

The depths that the retarded Trump supporters will go to in his defense is simply amazing.

Did none of you watch the event live?

I had it on and only watched intermittently but heard comments on the crowd size being much smaller than in the past and saw overhead live footage showing the exact same crowd as in the photos.

How do you all imagine the feed was edited in real time across all broadcasts?

You dopes have set a new standard of just absolute retardation with this one.

So you still havent looked at the gig

Perspective doesn't change the fact that the gigapixel shows those two sections completely full, yet the overhead photo shows that first section partially full and the second one nearly empty. Doesn't match at all. The very back section is empty on both, but those two in front of that are completely different than the overhead one. I'm not saying it was as full as Obama's, I don't think it was nor do I care about that. But it does show CNN was completely dishonest on the overhead shots in order to insult Trump and everyone that voted for him.

I can't open the gigapixel, but what does it show? Does it show two sections completely full and it is able to show you that it is completely full because it's taken from high above? Or it shows some people and you can't see the spaces because their bodies are in the way?

I've not see a SINGLE picture that suggests that the area was full. None of the people defending Trump are showing things, they're just trying to put doubt out there and have nothing.

CNN was as dishonest as EVERYONE ELSE, including the truth. Fox who haven't reported on this don't have a single photo of the place full. What a surprise.

With the GigaPixal image you can zoom in and it clearly shows a packed house.

I did look at it.
There is no overhead shot that shows a full mall. No one has provided that.

Did you use the zoom feature?

I did.
Did you provide the overhead shot refuting the one in question?

I suppose only those directly involved in the MSM conspiracy had access to the cam on the Washington Monument.

was there an overhead shot at the time of the speech. Why don't you post it to make your point.

 

[Edgetho]

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The depths that the retarded Trump supporters will go to in his defense is simply amazing.

Did none of you watch the event live?

I had it on and only watched intermittently but heard comments on the crowd size being much smaller than in the past and saw overhead live footage showing the exact same crowd as in the photos.

How do you all imagine the feed was edited in real time across all broadcasts?

You dopes have set a new standard of just absolute retardation with this one.

So you still havent looked at the gig

I can't open the gigapixel, but what does it show? Does it show two sections completely full and it is able to show you that it is completely full because it's taken from high above? Or it shows some people and you can't see the spaces because their bodies are in the way?

I've not see a SINGLE picture that suggests that the area was full. None of the people defending Trump are showing things, they're just trying to put doubt out there and have nothing.

CNN was as dishonest as EVERYONE ELSE, including the truth. Fox who haven't reported on this don't have a single photo of the place full. What a surprise.

With the GigaPixal image you can zoom in and it clearly shows a packed house.

I did look at it.
There is no overhead shot that shows a full mall. No one has provided that.

Did you use the zoom feature?

I did.
Did you provide the overhead shot refuting the one in question?

I suppose only those directly involved in the MSM conspiracy had access to the cam on the Washington Monument.

was there an overhead shot at the time of the speech. Why don't you post it to make your point.

Already done, dope.
Liberal media caught in another blatant lie: National Mall was FULL during Trump's inauguration

 

[sealybobo]

Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting that the Mall was half empty or worse during Trump's inauguration. They point to photos displayed by the New York Times and other liberal rags as "proof", showing most of the Mall empty.

But CNN has developed a photo technique they call "Gigapixel", which takes a photo of a very large area, with such precision that you can zoom in and see individual faces. They used it while Trump was giving his inaugural address.

Unfortunately, CNN was so eager to show off their new technology, they forgot to get their stories straight with the other media outlets first. You have to go to the website and pivot the picture back and forth. And when you do, at one end you can see Trump standing at the dais alone, giving his speech to the audience. And if you swing it the other way and zoom out, you can see that the National Mall is COMPLETELY FULL except for two small sections that were 75% full. That's easily a million people.

No wonder Trump's people ripped the media a new one (again). The NYTimes was manufacturing fake news (again) designed to make Trump look bad (again), and they got caught red-handed (again).

A small line near the bottom of the NYT article explains the lie: They admit that their half-empty picture was taken nearly an hour before Trump was inaugurated, and that people were still coming in. Why they call that picture "Trump's Inauguration" is not explained.

When you ask someone how many people came to Trump's inauguration, you're not asking how many showed up an hour early. You're asking how many were there. The NYT tried to substitute the hour-earlier picture for an actual picture of the inauguration. But CNN showed an actual picture of the inauguration, in terrific detail... thus blowing the New York Times' lie out of the water.

For the New York Times' fake picture, see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html?_r=0

And for CNN's true picture taken an hour later, see Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump .

Remember to zoom the CNN picture in and out so you can see Trump giving his speech (which pinpoints what time it was taken), and you can also see that the entire Mall is jammed to the rafters.

You sheep are so pathetic it makes me sick. Don't you see the Trump camp wants to start a war with them media? Either that or they are pathetic to be bickering over how many people attended Trumps inaugeration. Who gives a fuck?

Reince Priebus: White House Will Fight Media 'Tooth And Nail' Over Trump Coverage | The Huffington Post

I'm a liberal willing to give Trump a chance but not if he's being sleezy. Is this step one in the Trump plan? First start a fight with the media because you are about to do some very unpopular things? I'm smelling a rat.

I wish I would have smelled a rat after 9-11. I gave Bush a chance and boy did he use 9-11 to fuck us. Please don't tell me Trumps going to be shady too. I hope not.